declare_structCreate or update struct definitions in the local type library of an IDA Pro instance to support reverse engineering type analysis.
Declare or update a struct in the local type library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decl | Yes | Struct declaration text (e.g. 'struct Name { ... };') | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails. It implies a write/mutation to the local type library but does not state what happens on update (overwrite vs merge), whether existing structs conflict, or what permissions/context (instance_id) are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating type-declaration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits update semantics, side effects on the local type library, and how it relates to the near-identical declare_enum/declare_typedef siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents decl, timeout, and instance_id fully. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb pair (declare/update) and resource (struct in the local type library), so an agent knows the target is a struct type definition. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar siblings declare_enum and declare_typedef, which share the same verb and shape.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus declare_enum, declare_typedef, or list_structs, nor any prerequisite or context requirement. Usage is only implied by the words 'declare or update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.